Poll: If Video Games Were ONLY Digital

[Sumez | 2,994]

9 hours ago, avatar! said:

People can always have stipulations and it doesn't make sense to try to put those all into a poll  

If the idea of the poll if to gauge people's acceptance to a digital-only future for game distribution, I think it makes a lot of sense to have that in the poll, as there now is no difference between "All the games I buy physical now I'd buy digital instead" and "I might buy one digital game or two under certain conditions".
We already had one person making the conclusion that 50% of this forum is fine with going all digital instead of physical, which I'm not sure is completely true.

It was just my two cents on the matter anyway, I don't care if the poll is changed, and it's too late to do it now anyway.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Sumez

[a3quit4s | 4,125]

8 hours ago, zeppelin03 said:

It's interesting that 50% of the people on here would still keep gaming in an all digital future.  That seems plenty high for a collector heavy forum.  I can only imagine what the numbers are like for the general public.  Most people I know don't want to mess with discs anymore.

I think most of us are gamers first and collectors second which may explain the phenomenon

[zeppelin03 | 314]

6 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

How well did digital distribution work out for Sega and Nintendo decades ago?  Put things in perspective, man... it's 2020 now and our infrastructure is improving all the time.  You'll see...

You mean those streamed games that have disappeared forever unless you have an everdrive or emulator?  I wasn't in Japan in the 90s but I have played the Satellaview games.  Homebrew and other communities take care of this.  Really it comes down to how you want to secure your access to the games you buy. You can do it digitally or physically and it all comes down to preference.

 

3 hours ago, Sumez said:

If the idea of the poll if to gauge people's acceptance to a digital-only future for game distribution, I think it makes a lot of sense to have that in the poll, as there now is no difference between "All the games I buy physical now I'd buy digital instead" and "I might buy one digital game or two under certain conditions".
We already had one person making the conclusion that 50% of this forum is fine with going all digital instead of physical, which I'm not sure is completely true.

It was just my two cents on the matter anyway, I don't care if the poll is changed, and it's too late to do it now anyway.

The poll is showing 50% would buy digital.  It isn't asking at what pricepoint. I have a few physical games I would like to buy but am waiting for sales.  The cost isn't changing the fact that I would buy them physically in that case.  Seems fair to handle the poll the same way.

[a3quit4s | 4,125]

1 hour ago, zeppelin03 said:

You mean those streamed games that have disappeared forever unless you have an everdrive or emulator?  I wasn't in Japan in the 90s but I have played the Satellaview games.  Homebrew and other communities take care of this.  Really it comes down to how you want to secure your access to the games you buy. You can do it digitally or physically and it all comes down to preference.

 

The poll is showing 50% would buy digital.  It isn't asking at what pricepoint. I have a few physical games I would like to buy but am waiting for sales.  The cost isn't changing the fact that I would buy them physically in that case.  Seems fair to handle the poll the same way.

I voted to not buy new games but your price point idea is interesting. I don’t think I would pay $59.99 for a new release digital game but bringing the cost down to 44.99 or 39.99 may change my mind. I get games are expensive to make but at least 10-20% of that cost has got to be printing, packing, and shipping games. 

[SNESNESCUBE64 | 552]

14 hours ago, avatar! said:

 

1)Digital = lose your account lose your games -NOT so with physical

2)Digital = game is removed by company game is lost -NOT so with physical

3)Physical copies can easily be lent to a friend, and there's no limit on this

4)Physical copies can be resold without any issues, they can also be an investment

5)Physical collector's items include numerous bonuses that are impossible to replicate digitally (such as statue/figure etc)

My main determent to physical copies is that they take up space. That's of course the nature of physical copies and collecting, but it's easy to let things go overboard if one is not prepared. 

2 and 3 are the only relevant ones to me personally. 1 is as simple as remembering your password and account info. Regardig 4, I've never understood games as investment, especially in the modern era. Sure you can buy all the games for $60 each (or what have you) and have a fraction be worth slightly more than the original. But that's none of my business as I am not looking to make money off my hobby. Regarding 5, that's a big no thanks from me, I have enough dust collectors as is.

Regarding the disc drive thing, give it some time. All moving parts stop. It's a fact of life. It's great to hear you haven't had issues, but I've had several. It's to the point where I am kind of fed up with optical/mechanical media. 

That said, I am on the side of "you do you" in regards to physical media. I don't really care how I play the game so long as the experience is preserved.

[RH | 4,966]

One aspect of this you guys have touched on but not dug to deep in is the idea of how we will play these digital games long after they are no longer published.  Obviously, ROMs and emulators are a thing, but the real question is will something like this in the long run make them more "acceptable" to the public.

In college, I'd download anything and I didn't care about IP rights, but when I got older, I did start to change a bit.  If a rights older provides a way to legally obtain a game, especially if I like it or really want it, I try to buy it.  Granted, I have nothing against buying used games but if a first party is distributing it, I think it's fair to give them profits to their IP.  However, if there is abandoned IP, even if a company still owns the rights, and there's no secondary market, I personally have no moral objection to downloading an emulator and ROM to play the game.

I rarely play ROMs of games I want because as of now 99.9% of them have a physical copy some where.  But if there isn't, I'll definitely hunt it down and download it.  Once we go digital only, there will be a time when 5-15 year old will download a game and it will be THE game that defines their gaming childhood.  For some of those kids, they will be semi-obscure titles and 10 years after their release, if there's no physical format, there will be no way to play those games other than emulators and ROMs.

For kids that become adults and reasonably respect IP laws (like myself), I think the idea of using emulators and ROMs will soften because there will be no other, legal way.  I'm only pointing this out because even though we're realistically talking about 20-30 down the road before this is in full affect, but this could be an unintended consequence.  When people soften a little to laws, many will soften a lot.  I really think in 20-30 years time we could se a large rush in emulator popularity for this reason.  I know a lot of people, and many of us here, are already doing this but most gamers don't, nor really care to take it that far.  I could see the nostalgia crowd morphing into emulation nerds because that's all they have to access the really old indy, obscure or awesome titles that flew under the radar.

[zeppelin03 | 314]

50 minutes ago, RH said:

One aspect of this you guys have touched on but not dug to deep in is the idea of how we will play these digital games long after they are no longer published.  Obviously, ROMs and emulators are a thing, but the real question is will something like this in the long run make them more "acceptable" to the public.

In college, I'd download anything and I didn't care about IP rights, but when I got older, I did start to change a bit.  If a rights older provides a way to legally obtain a game, especially if I like it or really want it, I try to buy it.  Granted, I have nothing against buying used games but if a first party is distributing it, I think it's fair to give them profits to their IP.  However, if there is abandoned IP, even if a company still owns the rights, and there's no secondary market, I personally have no moral objection to downloading an emulator and ROM to play the game.

I rarely play ROMs of games I want because as of now 99.9% of them have a physical copy some where.  But if there isn't, I'll definitely hunt it down and download it.  Once we go digital only, there will be a time when 5-15 year old will download a game and it will be THE game that defines their gaming childhood.  For some of those kids, they will be semi-obscure titles and 10 years after their release, if there's no physical format, there will be no way to play those games other than emulators and ROMs.

For kids that become adults and reasonably respect IP laws (like myself), I think the idea of using emulators and ROMs will soften because there will be no other, legal way.  I'm only pointing this out because even though we're realistically talking about 20-30 down the road before this is in full affect, but this could be an unintended consequence.  When people soften a little to laws, many will soften a lot.  I really think in 20-30 years time we could se a large rush in emulator popularity for this reason.  I know a lot of people, and many of us here, are already doing this but most gamers don't, nor really care to take it that far.  I could see the nostalgia crowd morphing into emulation nerds because that's all they have to access the really old indy, obscure or awesome titles that flew under the radar.

Thankfully there is a community that works of custom firmware and other homebrew for actual hardware.  The ability to mod consoles to accept backups is a very convenient feature that would help people play games how they were on the actual system.  I view it as the modern version of an everdrive.  My N64 games stay safe on a shelf and I use the everdrive for convenience.  My hope is that people who want the true experience will look to this over emulators.

I don't want to sound like I am endorsing piracy or something by bringing up these options.  It has plenty of convenient uses.  I like the idea of being able to backup my physical cart and the saves on a 3ds for instance.  Should my cart become corrupted (unlikely but things happen) I could still play the game somehow.  I view it as even more important for disc based stuff like Wii U that will suffer bit rot.  People are already archiving digital games (Scott Pilgrim for instance) and I hope it continues into the future as it goes all digital. 

I think a lot of the problem is preservation vs copyright.  I will gladly support a developer but also want the ability to store and use the media as I see fit.  If we are not distributing copyrighted material whats the harm in backing up, format shifting, etc for personal use.  I know copyright holders would offer a number of reasons that it is bad but I think the general public is punished due to claims of piracy.  Pirates crack DRM anyways.  Why not let honest people access their media in a reasonable fashion.  This is why I love GOG.  They just give you the game.  It isn't locked behind a program or console.  The ability to store Switch, PS5 or any other games on my computer or cloud storage for personal use could follow me for the next 50 years if I want.  Buying a used PS5 in twenty years and transferring an old game I bought to it instead of popping in a disc would be great.  I would gladly support the first console company that does this.  A way to support a devs work and truly own a digital file would be amazing but unlikely. 

I can't blame anyone wanting physical due to these limitations.  Until something changes people are stuck doing questionable stuff to protect their digital investment.  Our copyright laws haven't caught up to a digital world at least in regards to consumer rights.  I hear of little wins out of the EU but nothing that has really changed things for consumers yet.  I will keep supporting devs digitally and hope that changes.

Edited June 16, 2020 by zeppelin03

[a3quit4s | 4,125]

Another point to make about all this is when you buy a new PS4 or Xbox One game most of the time the game isn’t actually even on the disc. The disc acts more like a key that unlocks a download and you download to your console. Now this doesn’t matter today but if you delete the game and several years later you do and you pop in your disc and that download is no longer available, you are screwed. 
 

More clarification may be needed on what I’ve said above but I’ve popped in games that install less than 10MB from the disc and the 30GB for the game is all from the internet

[avatar! | 1,827]

7 hours ago, a3quit4s said:

Another point to make about all this is when you buy a new PS4 or Xbox One game most of the time the game isn’t actually even on the disc.

 I've never purchased such a game, and I've purchased a LOT of PS4 games. All LRG and other indie publishers are 100% good-to-go from the box. Yes, there might always be updates etc, but you can play the entire game without ever connecting online. Same for all the non-LRG games I own, and I down own some AAA titles (although I purchase those less and less). 

[elprincipe | 142]

What do people think of the various Switch games that have required downloads before you can play the game? I view them as completely pointless, since you don't have the game on the cartridge anyway. Why buy a physical copy of a game and not get what you are paying for? Doesn't make any sense to me that publishers do that.

[Gloves | 11,830]

5 minutes ago, elprincipe said:

What do people think of the various Switch games that have required downloads before you can play the game? I view them as completely pointless, since you don't have the game on the cartridge anyway. Why buy a physical copy of a game and not get what you are paying for? Doesn't make any sense to me that publishers do that.

What pisses me off is the multi-game carts that only have one game and you have to download the others (Resident Evil Revelations comes to mind). 

But yeah if there are game carts that don't even have tho gull game that's ridiculous. Physical NEEDS to remain an option for people with little or no access to the internet. 

[avatar! | 1,827]

8 minutes ago, elprincipe said:

What do people think of the various Switch games that have required downloads before you can play the game? I view them as completely pointless, since you don't have the game on the cartridge anyway. 

Yeah I agree, it seems extremely pointless. 

[Sumez | 2,994]

I don't think I've run into a game that required me to download the "patch" to even play it, but I've come across a few ones that had extremely annoying or even game-breaking bugs without it. I backed Bloodstained for a physical copy, had to wait until way after the digital release to be able to play it, and when I did get it, it was completely unplayable without the day 1 patch.

Cities: Skylines I started playing during a period where I had no internet connection due to contractors accidentally cutting our cable outside the house. When I got the connection back a couple of days later, a patch completely changed everything in the game, including a lot of the economics balance and what it's possible to build, which hurt my city immensely, and a bugfix in how sewage worked caused every sewage pipe in my city to be ineffective, literally covering my city in shit just a few seconds after loading my save...

Edited June 17, 2020 by Sumez

[zeppelin03 | 314]

5 hours ago, elprincipe said:

What do people think of the various Switch games that have required downloads before you can play the game? I view them as completely pointless, since you don't have the game on the cartridge anyway. Why buy a physical copy of a game and not get what you are paying for? Doesn't make any sense to me that publishers do that.

If I am remembering correctly the carts were 16GB and couldn't fit the game.  Downloads were needed. Now there are 32GB cats so it is mostly companies trying to save a few dollars. 

[LeatherRebel5150 | 1,056]

21 hours ago, ChickenTendas4PokeyEater said:

Not sure about printing, packing, and shipping but retailers take 20% of that $59.99 

As a company, you're constantly trying to save money and this seems like a no-brainer. The question is how long it will take to make the transition.

I'm nearly 100% positive retailers don't get nearly 20% on a $60 game. There have been so many discussions by people in retail that deal with that where they say the literally make a few dollars (maybe $5 if theyre lucky) per new game.

[drxandy | 3,236]

On 6/15/2020 at 12:23 PM, Makar said:

Four reasons why I don't like digital games:

1) storage is always a problem. Only so much memory on a system.

2) I can't sell them or trade them if I want to do that. 

3) I can't collect them. Nothing to display. No cool physical artwork, etc.

4) They're the same price as physical games. I have no incentive to buy a digital game if I can buy the same game physically. I distinctly recently remember buying Wargroove digitally thinking it was an eShop exclusive, then learned there was a physical copy, bought that, called up the Nintendo help line and got my money back for the digital Wargroove.

If games go full digital they better figure out the internal storage issue. You fill up your switch's memory with like 5-10 games. It's a joke. Yes I know you can buy a micro SD card but that has its limits too and games will only take up more memory over time as they get more complex with graphics. 

CDs are still a thing, as are physical books so I don't see why video games would ever be only digital.

I prefer physical and always will but if digital is the only option, I'll get with the times if they fix some issues like the storage one, I'll probably buy a ton less, and if they start doing games with ads, I'm out.

Nailed it. 

[glazball | 172]

11 hours ago, elprincipe said:

What do people think of the various Switch games that have required downloads before you can play the game? I view them as completely pointless, since you don't have the game on the cartridge anyway. Why buy a physical copy of a game and not get what you are paying for? Doesn't make any sense to me that publishers do that.

Yes, it's ridiculous and it's the main reason that (full set) Switch collecting is idiotic.  I'm happy I never got bitten by that bug.

[a3quit4s | 4,125]

17 minutes ago, glazball said:

Yes, it's ridiculous and it's the main reason that (full set) Switch collecting is idiotic.  I'm happy I never got bitten by that bug.

That and I feel like 13 new switch games come out every minute. It’s worse if you are into collecting Limited Run and other publishers like that

[AstralSoul | 502]

I would still buy games and play them, but I'd buy significantly less of them. If I buy a game physically, not only can I sell it if I don't like it but I can buy them discounts much more often than digital games. I find digital games are almost always more expensive than finding a physical copy.

[Tanooki | 4,952]

On 6/17/2020 at 5:03 AM, zeppelin03 said:

If I am remembering correctly the carts were 16GB and couldn't fit the game.  Downloads were needed. Now there are 32GB cats so it is mostly companies trying to save a few dollars. 

There always was 32GB from day one, it's just developers not wanting to pay for it.  A year back the story was that in your typical larger size run of games when ordered to market that the 8GB cards from Nintendo were fairly equal to a large blu ray run, but then 16 and more so 32GB were a notably larger chunk so various companies would just cheap out and do split download/on card releases or just go digital entirely which was a shame.  Now the problem is there is a 64GB card that has been done for a long while but Nintendo refuses to sell it because the expense of it would make people want to charge over the usual high end $60 price on the games to not take a big hit on profit.

THat said some of these companies have just been greedy taking advantage, Capcom being the glaring one, when they did all those Mega Man/X style compilation packages and put 1 game on, 1 as a download when the games didn't even eat up a cheap 8GB card let alone smaller choices.  RIME did this, as did various others.  Some just did it either to be cheap, or to play a DRM like game to force a download to regulate who gets what in full or at all.  Sometimes though it was entirely unavoidable because Nintendo won't release the 64 which would solve it such as with Wolfenstein 2.

[avatar! | 1,827]

Been a few weeks, decided to close the poll.

SO, about 63% will continue to purchase games digital or not.

About 28% will NOT purchase digital games (quite higher than I personally expected). 

And about 9% will purchase digital games so long as they can be sold/traded. 

Granted this was a small poll, but interesting results nonetheless. Seems to indicate at that at this point in time it would be foolish for companies to go only digital. 

It will be interesting to see how results change a year or two down the road...

Edited June 27, 2020 by avatar!

[Gloves | 11,830]

4 minutes ago, avatar! said:

Granted this was a small poll, but interesting results nonetheless. Seems to indicate at that at this point in time it would be foolish for companies to go only digital. 

Bearing in mind not only the size of the poll, but the demographic of this forum. This group is by and large not the target market.